Bharat Kumar vs State, Through Pp And Ors

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 363, 366, 120B IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2018, the complainant Jivanram filed a written report before the Police station Ramdevra to the effect that yesterday in the morning he along with his daughter and other family members went for Darshan at Remdevra temple. At about 7-7:30 AM all of a sudden his daughter went missing. He searched for her at so many places and also checked CCTV cameras installed in Ramdevra temple upon which he came to know that one Kamlesh took his daughter with intention to marry her. Thereafter the complainant also came to know that the present petitioner, who is friend of Kamlesh, was also indulged in the said incident. On the said complaint, the Police registered the case for offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and commenced investigation. After due investigation, the Police filed challan against the present petitioner as well as against co-accused Kamlesh. Thereafter the learned trial court after hearing the parties framed the charges against the petitioner and co-accused Kamlesh vide impugned order dated 25.10.2018. Hence, this revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present petitioner. Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she merely mentioned that the present petitioner has only made arrangement to stay at Bikaner. No other allegation has been levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner. Likewise, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Prosecutrix has not named the present petitioner at all. Counsel submits that from the perusal of the statements of the prosecutrix, it is apparent that the main accused in this case is Kamlesh and the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly framed the charges against the petitioner. Thus the order impugned of framing charge deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant has supported the order impugned and submitted that the prosecutrix is only 12 years old and with the help of the present petitioner, the co-accused Kamlesh had enticed away the daughter of complainant with intention to marry her, as such, the order impugned is perfectly justified and warrants no interference.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the order impugned as well as challan papers.

In her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has specifically mentioned that she had a mobile phone and she used to regularly talk with co-accused Kamlesh. The prosecutrix further stated that she and Kamlesh made a plan to go to Bikaner without informing her parents. She stated that the present petitioner helped co-accused Kamlesh in making arrangement to stay at Bikaner. The prosecutrix in her statement has not made any specific allegation against the present petitioner with regard to abduction or inducement except that the present petitioner had made arrangement to stay at Bikaner.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court while framing the charge against the present petitioner has not properly appreciated the evidence and material available on record. The order impugned suffers from grave illegality and perversity.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned of framing charge dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in respect of co-accused Kamlesh.

Stay application is also decided.